Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pay is not based on how hard the work is, if that were the case hotel cleaning people and farm workers would be paid more than lawyers. Like everything else, it's supply and demand. There are many more people that can clean rooms or pick fruit with minimal training (or serve fast food) than can litigate in court. The jobs requiring specific skills will pay more. When those skills are hard to find, the pay goes up. That's why the best professional athletes make over $20 million/year, and the best tech workers are getting $300k.
PRetty much this.
In regions where MW won't cut it, they offer rates like $4/hr ABOVE MW, and STILL can't get enough employees. In movies where "the world as we know it" ends... a farmer who can produce food will offer FAAR more value than the stock broker who was making $30K... per Month.
It's still hypocritical how those here do criticize those making MW that they should work harder when that really is NOT the way to go.
In regions where MW won't cut it, they offer rates like $4/hr ABOVE MW, and STILL can't get enough employees. In movies where "the world as we know it" ends... a farmer who can produce food will offer FAAR more value than the stock broker who was making $30K... per Month.
It's still hypocritical how those here do criticize those making MW that they should work harder when that really is NOT the way to go.
So don't work harder? Working harder can be both physical and mental.
So don't work harder? Working harder can be both physical and mental.
There's always an upper limit to how hard you can work. There are only so many hours you can work, and only so much you can produce per hour. You need to work smarter. I cannot go out and dig ditches twice as fast as someone half my age who's in excellent shape. So why would I try? I do things that most people can't. My work seems ridiculously simple and easy to me, but that's because I've learned how to do some particularly useful things so well I don't need to "work hard" at it.
Why are execs worth MILLIONS whether they succeed or fail?? The only answer most of the idiots have is just reduce headcount and layoff when they run the business into the ground. Doesn't take too many brains to do that.
Why are execs worth MILLIONS whether they succeed or fail?? The only answer most of the idiots have is just reduce headcount and layoff when they run the business into the ground. Doesn't take too many brains to do that.
Don’t be ridiculous. Do you think that Elon Musk of Tesla is building a company by laying off headcount? No, he is building batteries.
Did Jeff Bezos build Amazon by laying off people? No, he shook up the Internet by doing things others hadn’t considered.
Is Todd Vasos of Dollar General expanding like crazy because his only thought is layoffs? No, he found a niche that Walmart ignores.
I get that your personal situation isn’t good, but you might learn something and position yourself for success if you get your head out of the sand.
Yes, I did read this whole big long thread.
My question is “Why does anyone anywhere think people should work 40 hours a week for less than basic subsistence?”
So your say'n "chop off the head"? "Limit potential"?
How about make all accountable? Those who perform succeed, those who don't will stay stagnant.
Can't climb a ladder with no effort or desire to reach the next step. Weaken the rungs on top of the ladder and who will want to climb up and take that risk?
this is not what i'm saying at all.
I understand the whole principle behind the Ayn Rand idea of the smart people getting rewarded for creating, but if you think about it honestly, would you feel any difference between earning $1 million per year vs earning $15 million per year?
Besides, the brag factor of a higher number, you more than likely would not be impacted because there's only so much stuff you can buy in this world. There is a law of diminishing returns with the higher returns.
A billionaire doesn't live/feel that different from a millionaire. I know it's probably easy for me to say since I don't earn more than $500k per year.
In regions where MW won't cut it, they offer rates like $4/hr ABOVE MW, and STILL can't get enough employees. In movies where "the world as we know it" ends... a farmer who can produce food will offer FAAR more value than the stock broker who was making $30K... per Month.
It's still hypocritical how those here do criticize those making MW that they should work harder when that really is NOT the way to go.
this is happening near me, minimum wage folks can't afford to live near the jobs and there is no public transportation. Cheap cars are too expensive for many so they can't get to the jobs.
Recent efforts to build affordable housing are protested because homeowners are afraid of property values dropping as a result of the affordable housing.
My question is “Why does anyone anywhere think people should work 40 hours a week for less than basic subsistence?”
If someone chooses to do that, who are you to step in and say they can't?
Teenagers used to do jobs for "less than basic subsistence" because they already had basic subsistence. How about the retired guy who just wants to stay busy? Someone who takes a second job for some extra money?
Further, let's move on to your next obvious argument... "But what about the poor guy who just can't find anything that pays more?" Well, there you go, right there... his labor simply isn't worth more. You cannot wave a magic wand and change that. Setting minimum wages doesn't make his life better, it makes it worse... if the job isn't worth $15 an hour, but the employer cannot pay less, the job simply won't be done. Or one person will do two old $8 an hour jobs.
And then we have the problematic next logical step in your argument... if we somehow guarantee that everyone who works 40 hours receives "basic subsistence", how long is it before we say that you cannot make more than X above basic subsistence, because that "wouldn't be fair", or is "greed", or "takes money from others".
You worry about how much you make, and leave me to worry about how much I make. 'K?
what if we allow all the "leaders" to make as much as they normally make, but limit any kind of inheritance to their children to an inflation linked 1-2 million (each) in total and allow the remainder to go back to society to pay for military and walls and highways and social services and basic income.
The argument for some is that a mover and shaker should be paid and rewarded for their contribution, but this should not apply to their children who are not the movers and shakers and allow them to rise on their own merit.
Limit trusts, store accounts and corporate ownership to close those loop holes too.
In the future, there will be no income what-so-ever when full automation kicks in and pushes our economy to a new paradigm.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
